Having most of the wealth concentrated in a few hands is stifling to the economy. There are only so many TVs and cars and houses and food one person can buy.
Having more people with disposable income (even if there is less total wealth) is what grows an economy.
If you give 1 man 1 million dollars, he will spend it on something silly like a yacht, but give 1 million people 1 dollar, and most of them will spend it on groceries or rent.
Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?
The more forward thinking recognized, about a decade ago, that the poor weren't that poor, and that the intelligent weren't buying their bullshit power grab anymore.
Your right, those homeless people you see begging for money on the street corners are totally paid actors sponsored by the evil left. And those Detroit/NYC/Philly slums they show on TV are all movie sets.
A cardboard box is still technically a roof over their head, and the leftovers from the local dumpster is technically food, so why should they have the right to demand more?
As long as we have a nice house and a nice car, why should we care about anyone else? We got ours./s
If it's anything like my experiences, local anesthetic removes the feeling of pain, but doesn't remove sensation entirely, so you can still feel what the doctor is doing somewhat. Normally your only options are to either watch what they are doing, or close your eyes and try to ignore it all (or the more dangerous 3rd option, sleep through it via general anesthetic). VR fits into the second category, by both blocking hearing and vision, and by making it far easier to ignore everything going on in the outside world.
If you tried one of the two, and it made you sick, especially if it was immediate sickness, then it's not the headset's fault, you are just one of the small percentage of people that simply can't handle VR (my mom is like this, she gets sick with 30 seconds). You will probably never be able to use VR in your lifetime, regardless of how far the technology advances, unless you either take medication or start building up a tolerance.
It's pretty extreme to say that VR should be banned by the government just because YOU personally don't like it.
A lot of places are like this now. They don't even average the score anymore, they just count the number of 5/5s or 10/10s.
Under this rating, someone who totally sucks (would get a 4/10 on average), would beat someone who is really good most of the time (8/10 average), as long as the first guy gets a few of his friends involved to generate fake 10/10 reviews.
The place I work at had to fire a store manager recently for cooking the books in order to meet his bonus requirements. It took 2 people 3 weeks to double check everything and get real numbers.
No company has more experience with computer controlled flight than Airbus. The A380 is already capable of tarmac-to-tarmac autonomous flight, treating the human pilots more as a fail-safe than as real pilots. (For example, if the human pilot tries to do something stupid, like fly upside down or intentionally crash, the autopilot is designed to fight back).
4. Self flying cars are even more ridiculous than self driving cars, given that self driving cars cannot handle streets that have not been mapped to millimeter precision, or road constructions, or bad weather, or any of a million other real life conditions. Flying is geometrically more complicated than driving, and there's no reason to believe anyone alive to day will live to see true self driving cars.
Airbus A380s can already fly the ENTIRE ROUTE completely by autopilot, including the takeoff and landing (auto-landing requires an airport with ILS, which most major airports already have, not sure of the requirements for auto-takeoff)
While flying is technically more difficult than driving, there are far less things to run into, and a lot of aircraft already have a system similar to v2v, so the computer already knows where all the other aircraft are in the sky. Radar detection/avoidance also works much better in the air, because there are less obstructions.
Just because flying is harder than driving for a human to do, doesn't mean it's also harder for a computer to do.
That's just dumb, that's just dumb because you can't make a car smart enough to navigate daily traffic with all onboard sensors.
This is exactly how Tesla does it, and while it isn't perfect, it's mostly usable and still improving. It's silly to say something is impossible when we are already most of the way there.
This is why it's such a shame that the vast majority of rail trolley networks across the US were destroyed. They would have been almost trivial to automate.
So we should just take what little they deign to give us and be happy with it?
It's not about jealousy, it's about fairness. They don't work 200x harder, or 200x more hours, or have 200x more stress and risk, so why do they get 200x more money? (and that is for someone at median income, it's even worse for the minimum-wage workers)
The pie is the total revenue of Apple (specifically, $215.6 billion) so every penny that Tim Cook and the other executives get is a penny that didn't go to the people actually doing the work. Yes, I realize it would only be a difference of a few cents per employee, but it's still unfair for one person to make more in one day (day after day) than most people make in a year.
I wasn't referring to just Tim Cook, I was referring to every top-executive at every company who also receives non-salary compensation.
If all of Apple's suppliers dropped their prices (by cutting executive salaries) it would drop the cost more. And if the supermarket chains, utility companies, gas companies, etc did the same, you money would go further.
High executive salaries (and stock dividends, aka 'paying rich people simply for being rich') are the vampires sucking the money out of the economy, and increasing income inequality.
The money they pay those high-priced exec doesn't come out of thin air, it comes directly out of our pockets, in the form of higher prices and lower wages.
I think this is closer to the truth. It wasn't people saying "hey, the news says bitcoin is high, I should sell". It was people setting up automated buy and sell orders based on specific value amounts. The problem was that everyone seems to have picked the exact same numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Having most of the wealth concentrated in a few hands is stifling to the economy. There are only so many TVs and cars and houses and food one person can buy.
Having more people with disposable income (even if there is less total wealth) is what grows an economy.
If you give 1 man 1 million dollars, he will spend it on something silly like a yacht, but give 1 million people 1 dollar, and most of them will spend it on groceries or rent.
Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?
The more forward thinking recognized, about a decade ago, that the poor weren't that poor, and that the intelligent weren't buying their bullshit power grab anymore.
Your right, those homeless people you see begging for money on the street corners are totally paid actors sponsored by the evil left. And those Detroit/NYC/Philly slums they show on TV are all movie sets.
A cardboard box is still technically a roof over their head, and the leftovers from the local dumpster is technically food, so why should they have the right to demand more?
As long as we have a nice house and a nice car, why should we care about anyone else? We got ours. /s
In Oracle's 155-page appeal on Friday, it [...] said "Google reaped billions of dollars while leaving Oracle's Java business in tatters."
It seems to me that it was Oracle that left Sun's Java business in tatters.
A Cuban medical degree is accepted in many countries (but not the US). Cuban doctors are highly sought-after all over the world.
VR is there to keep the patient distracted from the small amount of pulling/tugging sensation that is left over after the anesthetic kicks in.
It's meant to treat the mental pain of being cut-into while still awake.
If it's anything like my experiences, local anesthetic removes the feeling of pain, but doesn't remove sensation entirely, so you can still feel what the doctor is doing somewhat. Normally your only options are to either watch what they are doing, or close your eyes and try to ignore it all (or the more dangerous 3rd option, sleep through it via general anesthetic). VR fits into the second category, by both blocking hearing and vision, and by making it far easier to ignore everything going on in the outside world.
Have you actually tried the vive or the rift?
If you tried one of the two, and it made you sick, especially if it was immediate sickness, then it's not the headset's fault, you are just one of the small percentage of people that simply can't handle VR (my mom is like this, she gets sick with 30 seconds). You will probably never be able to use VR in your lifetime, regardless of how far the technology advances, unless you either take medication or start building up a tolerance.
It's pretty extreme to say that VR should be banned by the government just because YOU personally don't like it.
A lot of places are like this now. They don't even average the score anymore, they just count the number of 5/5s or 10/10s.
Under this rating, someone who totally sucks (would get a 4/10 on average), would beat someone who is really good most of the time (8/10 average), as long as the first guy gets a few of his friends involved to generate fake 10/10 reviews.
The place I work at had to fire a store manager recently for cooking the books in order to meet his bonus requirements. It took 2 people 3 weeks to double check everything and get real numbers.
I think you just described the already existing active-shutter 3d system.
If you can't clear a 6ftx4ft space in your house...you might be a hoarder.
Don't fly in an Airbus A380 then, because they are already autonomous.
No company has more experience with computer controlled flight than Airbus. The A380 is already capable of tarmac-to-tarmac autonomous flight, treating the human pilots more as a fail-safe than as real pilots. (For example, if the human pilot tries to do something stupid, like fly upside down or intentionally crash, the autopilot is designed to fight back).
4. Self flying cars are even more ridiculous than self driving cars, given that self driving cars cannot handle streets that have not been mapped to millimeter precision, or road constructions, or bad weather, or any of a million other real life conditions. Flying is geometrically more complicated than driving, and there's no reason to believe anyone alive to day will live to see true self driving cars.
Airbus A380s can already fly the ENTIRE ROUTE completely by autopilot, including the takeoff and landing (auto-landing requires an airport with ILS, which most major airports already have, not sure of the requirements for auto-takeoff)
While flying is technically more difficult than driving, there are far less things to run into, and a lot of aircraft already have a system similar to v2v, so the computer already knows where all the other aircraft are in the sky. Radar detection/avoidance also works much better in the air, because there are less obstructions.
Just because flying is harder than driving for a human to do, doesn't mean it's also harder for a computer to do.
That's just dumb, that's just dumb because you can't make a car smart enough to navigate daily traffic with all onboard sensors.
This is exactly how Tesla does it, and while it isn't perfect, it's mostly usable and still improving. It's silly to say something is impossible when we are already most of the way there.
This is why it's such a shame that the vast majority of rail trolley networks across the US were destroyed. They would have been almost trivial to automate.
No, but it means they COULD have been given raises. Who knows where that $2 million difference actually went (probably into some offshore tax-haven)
So we should just take what little they deign to give us and be happy with it?
It's not about jealousy, it's about fairness. They don't work 200x harder, or 200x more hours, or have 200x more stress and risk, so why do they get 200x more money? (and that is for someone at median income, it's even worse for the minimum-wage workers)
The pie is the total revenue of Apple (specifically, $215.6 billion) so every penny that Tim Cook and the other executives get is a penny that didn't go to the people actually doing the work. Yes, I realize it would only be a difference of a few cents per employee, but it's still unfair for one person to make more in one day (day after day) than most people make in a year.
I wasn't referring to just Tim Cook, I was referring to every top-executive at every company who also receives non-salary compensation.
If all of Apple's suppliers dropped their prices (by cutting executive salaries) it would drop the cost more. And if the supermarket chains, utility companies, gas companies, etc did the same, you money would go further.
High executive salaries (and stock dividends, aka 'paying rich people simply for being rich') are the vampires sucking the money out of the economy, and increasing income inequality.
If he is responsible, then why doesn't he get punished when things go wrong?
If they had taken ALL of his compensation, it would have almost covered the whole amount the lost.
Instead they RAISED his salary.
The money they pay those high-priced exec doesn't come out of thin air, it comes directly out of our pockets, in the form of higher prices and lower wages.
Gasoline prices (at the pump) are regulated in many places.
Even a stopped clock shows the right time twice a day.
I think this is closer to the truth. It wasn't people saying "hey, the news says bitcoin is high, I should sell". It was people setting up automated buy and sell orders based on specific value amounts. The problem was that everyone seems to have picked the exact same numbers.